Rebane's Ruminations

‘True Value of Work’ and ‘Caring Economics’

George Rebane

KVMR news director Paul Emery commenting on ‘Right Wing Extremism in Action: Tea Party Houston’ introduced Riane Eisler’s Caring Economics into the wide-ranging discussion in that post’s comment stream.  Paul Emery’s concern there was that Eisler’s ideas are so compelling and, at the same time, revolting to conservatives, that they find it too hot to handle and simply want to change the subject instead of confronting head on its solutions to society’s problems.  I personally was accused twice of doing so after answering Paul’s charges (BTW, readers should know that Paul is a friend, the ‘editor’ of my regular KVMR commentary, a student of the human condition, and one of the leading light’s in the local left’s intellectual  pantheon.  I am grateful that his observations and critiques generously grace RR’s comment streams.)

By any measure, Eisler is a left-wing economist with strong feminist overtones.  The above link provides an excellent summary of her Caring Economics.  The purpose of this post it to provide a forum for a discussion of Eisler’s ideas for a brave and caring new world.  We begin appropriately with Paul’s most recent lament about capitalism -

One of the problems with capitalism as it is heralded by the self described conservatives is that it places no value on the work being done, only on whether it turns a profit. To place a value on the importance of the work being done is an evolution that Ms. Eisler embraces.  Doesn't the work of raising intelligent, educated and responsible children have more value than the manufacturing of cigarettes for example?  How is the true value of the work we do established?  It's a huge question that no one wants to talk about.

So let’s begin by talking about the ‘true value of work’.  (I have the honor of being not only a “self-described conservative”, but an ascribed conservative who has enjoyed that appellation from far and wide, bestowed over many years.)  Value itself is usually understood to be “the worth of something in terms of the amount of other things for which it can be exchanged or in terms of some medium of exchange.”   The ‘other things’ may be person-to-person specific, or person-to-market specific – here it takes to two tango.

‘True value’ of anything is a general concept foreign to most people, except perhaps those contemplating the workings of command economies.  Most progressives quickly tend toward command economies when in such discussions they are invited to bare their souls.  So in this sense, there exists no ‘true value of work’ that can be applied in the large where people are free to bargain and trade.  It has and continues to be a socialist shibboleth.

Now to the value of “the work of raising intelligent, educated and responsible children”.  In dollars and cents that value is already expressed precisely by the parents of the child as they invest in his support and education while he remains in their household.  From an economic perspective, the kid returns little beyond the hopefully net joy that is provided for by the human relationships involved.  And the little darlin’ doesn’t even provide that to the rest of us.

We stand still for transfer payments to benefit another’s child in the hope that the present value of the kid’s future economic contributions will somehow make worthwhile today’s expenditures.  As a taxpayer, I don’t need to pay for the parents’ marginal labor in bringing up their kid.  If they have wealth generating jobs, they already charge enough for their labor there to account for such ‘home expenses’.  The last thing that we need is an armed and uniformed marshal at my door to collect the marginal tax for paying some mother to raise her kids.  To an extent, I think we already have a foot in such a world.

Eisler’s new brand of command socialism would have us succumb to exactly such government assignations of the ‘true value of working mothers’ to be an added cost borne by the (all together now) ‘rich’.

Let me conclude this post by bringing forward the relevant comment thread from ‘Right Wing Extremism …’ to Paul’s above opening salvo.  Notice that Paul will introduce a new idea, “true capitalism”, in his response below.  This is another notion inaccessible to most of us.

 

‘All Political Violence is Wrong’

George Rebane

That is a thesis put forward in the comment stream of ‘Rightwing Extremism in Action: Tea Party Houston’.  And I believe this strong and important statement deserves an examination in its own right.  First, let us understand political violence to be the use of force in the pursuit of a political end.  What’s a political end?  In this case it is clearly a political environment that does not exist at the time that the violence is perpetrated.  Else why even give the matter thought, let alone start using force?

Politics (from Greek πολιτικός, "of, for, or relating to citizens"), is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The term is generally applied to the art or science of running governmental or state affairs (an excellent definition from Wikipedia).

So a political end is usually one that specifies a state of governance ranging all the way from the structure of government itself, to one or more policies of such a government that are codified in anything from its constituting documents, through its laws, to regulations made by its departments in pursuit of executing certain laws.

With this groundwork laid, we may profitably contemplate the truth value of the thesis ‘All political violence is wrong.’

To begin, can anyone think of any kind of violence (excluding naked criminality committed within a system of governance) which would not be considered political violence?  Political violence is throwing a Molotov cocktail through the window of an abortion clinic; it is blowing up a big government office building; it is also using billy clubs to determine who can or not enter a polling place, to attack commercial establishments in protesting certain meetings or government actions, to commit a suicide bombing, to cause harm to someone for not joining, and so on.

Political violence is also the marshalling of a population to raise an army, and fight for independence from a legally constituted and recognized government that rules the land – this is called a revolution.  Political violence is also when one nation decides that its interests are best served through the use of force to weaken another country, sanction it, coerce it into certain concessions, or to invade it and annex it into its sphere of influence either by absorption or installing a new government that serves its needs.  In short, it all seems to be political violence.

Do we now condemn some of the above, but not all of it?  It seems that most people would not condone an individual deciding to blow up a random group of innocent people in pursuit of political ends.  Yet if a group of people fill a city square to overturn cars, set fires, and make barricades to protest against their government, then we (in the large) don’t instantly condemn such political violence.  Instead, we will take into consideration many factors, and may even go to the aid of those people and abet their violence.  This is something that we will most likely not do if the perpetrator of such violence acted alone, or with a comrade, or maybe a cohort of less than ten, or … .

Unavoidably, it seems that numbers have something to do with whether we admit and condone political violence or condemn and resist it.  The principles that motivate the ‘lone wolf’ and the mob of thousands may be identical, but somehow here principle is overshadowed by plurality.

If that is true, how do we assign an a priori threshold or rule set (algorithm) to separate ‘good’ political violence from ‘bad’ political violence?  Many will immediately respond by saying, ‘Well, that depends on many things.’  And that is point here, what are those many things?  How are we – or better, how am I - to judge the acceptability of political violence given that it is one of the most common and enduring expressions of human desperation?

Elizabeth & Lucas: Grandpa's Bragging Rights

George Rebane

 

Grandkids Lucas and Elizabeth, of our Northern Tribe in Washington, went to Spokane this weekend for the state's high school track championships.  They attend Bear Creek School in Woodinville, and their track team qualified for the championships in several events.  Both kids and the team did well as you can tell from their expressions.  Lucas also plays basketball for the school, and Elizabeth is on the school's volleyball team.  Their little sister Catherine, another basketball player (actually none of the Rebane sprouts are little) is off playing in the AAU league on a team for which she was recruited.  Mom (daughter Sini) is a trained sports photographer, and took the pictures.  Just thought you all would want to know ;-)

Remembering and Providing for Sacrifice

George Rebane

Today we remember and honor the military service men and women who died for us, and those who have yet to come home.  We sent them into harm’s way to keep harm away from us and our loved ones.  They went willingly again and again to do the work of war with the belief, and sometimes only hope, that their country was behind them.

 

Since the days of muzzle loading rifles and the Constitution class of frigates, one way Americans heading for battle knew their country supported them fully was in the quality and supply of weapons and stores they were provided.  In the main, these were always the best that was available for warcraft.  And with innovative entrepreneurs free to invent, make, and sell, America soon set the standard for getting there firstest with the bestest and mostest – once our politicians had things sorted out.

California – Failed and Federalized

George Rebane

About two years ago in these pages I introduced the notion of California rapidly becoming federalized (here) because it was successfully pursuing many concurrent avenues to failure.  A federalized state must first be a failed state, and that we have become as William Russell Mead explains in a tightly written piece on his American Interest blog.  The following is the introduction to Mead’s essay.

The controversial US Supreme Court decision that could ultimately force California to release tens of thousands of prison inmates is more than a shockingly broad exercise of judicial power.  It is also an official declaration by the highest constitutional authority in the land that California meets the strict test of state failure: it can no longer enforce the law within its frontiers.

Let there be no mistake: when you produce so many criminals that you can’t afford to lock them up, you are a failed state.  Virtually every important civil institution in society has to fail to get you to this point.  Your homes and houses of worship are failing to build law abiding citizens, much less responsible and informed voters.  Your schools aren’t educating enough of your kids to make an honest living.  Your taxes and policies are so bad that you are driving thousands of businesses away.  Your management systems must be fouled and confused to the max for you to create something so dysfunctional, so wildly beyond your means, that the Supreme Court of the United States (wisely or foolishly is another question) starts to micromanage your jails.

California used to be the glory of this country, the dream by the sea, the magic state.  Now it produces so many criminals it can’t pay to keep them locked up.

Please read the entire essay ‘SCOTUS Makes It Official: California A Failed State’.  H/T to regular RR reader for alerting us to this.

Orthogonality – Semantic and Otherwise

George Rebane

These pages see a lot of debate between commenters of widely varying ideological stripe.  One of the problems often encountered by the reader of comment threads, embedded in a posted article's comment stream, is that one debater suddenly posts a comment that somehow does not follow what went on before – it seems to have taken a turn and headed off to left field.  If the other commenter or debater attempts follow or point out the sudden detour, then the debate essentially disintegrates with no clear understanding by readers of where at least one (usually the dear departing) contenders stands on the original proposition.

I am posting this little piece as one that I and others can refer (and link) to in the future when it is desired to highlight the basis for a discussion thread’s going awry.  And I will provide for this by defining the notions of semantic orthogonality and the independence of likelihoods (or probabilities) of propositions being true/correct.

Rood Center Bumblings

George Rebane

[This is the transcript of my regular bi-weekly KVMR-FM commentary broadcast earlier this (27may11) evening.]

Going into its second year now is a ballooning lawsuit that names Nevada County, its Clerk-Recorder Mr Greg Diaz, and Aptitude Solutions, a Florida software company as defendants.  The suit is brought by AtPac, the county’s longtime records processing and storage software vendor, which was replaced by the Florida company selling similar software and services.

Things with the switchover to Aptitude started going wrong from the start as I reported to you last month, and as has been covered extensively in The Union and some local blogs, mine included.  The former vendor AtPac has charged that Mr Greg Diaz and the county wrongfully gave the new vendor access to AtPac’s proprietary intellectual property.  Diaz and the county apparently did this in order to facilitate the changeover of county data so that it could be handled by the Florida vendor’s software.

Both the county and Mr Diaz continue to deny doing anything improper as the case drags through its discovery phase and preparation for trial sometime later this year.  The problems apparently started when the county refused to hire its old vendor to convert county data from its proprietary format into one that could be used by the new vendor.  That job would have cost the county a “maximum contract amount of $15,000”.

'Rightwing Extremism in Action: Tea Party Houston'

George Rebane

Here's an example of the asymmetry in the violent rhetoric and revolutionary fervor between the left and the right.  This video makes clear the palpable violence and hatred of the right.  Take a look at these rabid rightwingers; and check out the music that sets the mood.  Is this their best shot?

And then check out a good representation of what has become identified as the rightwing credo.  How does the self-declared midddle differentiate itself from these tenets?

Last night we saw the screening of 'A More Perfect Union', a compelling depiction of America's Constitutional Convention that produced the document which made us an enduring democratic republic.  The film was presented at the NC Board of Realtors' Easterly Hall by those radical NC Tea Party Patriots.  When the film ended it was hard to find a dry eye in the SRO hall.  Gotta watch 'em like a hawk.

TechTest2011 Survivors’ Breakfast

George Rebane

Tofanelli’s in Grass Valley was again the venue for the annual TechTest Survivors’ Breakfast.  2011 is the fifth anniversary of TechTest ('Where the Elite Compete'), the merit scholarship examination taken by a teacher-nominated group of select Nevada County high school seniors headed for careers in science and technology.  TT is written and sponsored by the Sierra Environmental Studies Foundation, and is administered by a committee of Nevada County high school teachers chaired by Mr John McDaniel.

  

This year’s breakfast was well attended by ‘survivors’ (pictured here), parents, local educators, SESF board members, and contributors to the TT2011 merit scholarship fund.  Scholarships are awarded strictly on the basis of test scores (more here).

This year’s survivors are heading for universities and colleges ranging from Ivy League and West Point to California’s institutions of higher education.  The breakfast allows everyone to share their plans and kibitz on their test experience – TT2011 was judged to be “a little easier” than previous editions, even though the top score was still about 60.  As author of the tests, I am making special note of that.  (Readers are invited to judge for themselves; past tests and solutions are available here.)

Also highlighted at the feed was SESF’s TechMentor program that supplies tutors and mentors to Nevada County schools.  These volunteers act as a teachers’ resource to work with students who have special remedial or advanced studies needs.  I wrote about this program in a recent Union column that provides more information if you are interested in helping our young people.

The plans for TT2012 include increasing the scholarship fund by inviting local businesses, especially the high tech companies, to contribute and get more involved with young people heading for technical careers.  If you wish to participate in TechTest or TechMentor, please email me at nctechmentor@gmail.com .

Tea Party – “Deaf, deluded, deceptive”?

George Rebane

 

The cartoon by friend and RR reader RL ‘Balanced Bob’ Crabb appears in today’s (24may11) Union.  Balanced Bob is a self-proclaimed down-the-middle observer of our partisan puffings and pitfalls.  Here he administers a well-worn leftwing swipe at the tea party movement by taking it to task for being too focused as an organization.  The tea party attracts its members through the narrow door of small government, fiscal responsibility, constitutionality, and free markets.

The tea party members (and I am one) take these as a limited yet powerful set of goals for governance that many people can agree on.  We don’t cover the waterfront as a political party might by also espousing social goals, a foreign policy, and so on.  This doesn’t mean that tea party members don’t each have their own beliefs and ideas about all those things; it’s just that these are not germane to their membership in our particular organization.  Sorta like the National Organization for Women not taking a stand on free markets (maybe they do?).

But a standard tack of the left, when at a disadvantage on the main point of an argument, is to immediately defocus it in either the topical and/or the historical dimension.  To their mind this is a perfectly valid method of discourse, especially political discourse.  For example, if a proposition is made that ‘high school education would be improved by putting only qualified teachers into classrooms’, then a teachers' union progressive would deflect the argument by accusing his counterpart of not caring for the quality of grade school education by omitting that from his proposition.  Or even more egregiously, applying the historical gambit, ‘Yeah?  Well where were you guys when we tried to do that ten years ago?’  Examples of this abound in the comment streams of these pages.

So here we have Balanced Bob now tilting at the tea party from the left in order to keep his credentials in equilibrium.  But the part that I’m having trouble understanding is how are we being “deceptive” by constantly publishing our focused emphasis on the principles we espouse.  And just because they were never meant to be comprehensive does not mean that tea party members wear blinders and are ignorant about the other issues on which their candidates take a stance.

I may not be among the most knowledgeable of tea party members – for which I apologize – but I do invite anyone sharing Bob’s view of the organization to button hole a member and talk to him/her about their knowledge of candidates and other issues.   It is the tea party kind of large scale awakening of the American electorate that keeps slogan-slinging politicos awake nights.